ML20210S941
| ML20210S941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0971, CON-#486-971 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8610080264 | |
| Download: ML20210S941 (4) | |
Text
.
!f JJl y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HNac J
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
'86 (ET -6 P2 :56 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
[0hh.E'd]INiNd Dr. Walter H. Jordan BRM:CH SERVED OCT -61986
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-0L
)
50-446-0L
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)
-)
ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
October 3, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMdRANDUM (CASE Discovery Request of June 27,1986)
On August 15, 1986, CASE filed a Motion to Compel regarding certain aspects of its discovery requests of June 27, 1986.1 This Memorandum addresses each of the points remaining in dispute between CASE and Applicants.2 The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission has chosen not to bat in this inning.
I See also " Applicants' Response to CASE Request for Production of Documents (June 27,1986) and Motion for Protective Order," August 1,1986 ( Applicants' Response); " Applicants' Suppio.nental Response to ' Case Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel,'" September 25, 1986.
2 Applicants and CASE confirmed by telephone today that issues 3 and 6 have been resolved.
In one instance, CASE has received a response to a follow-up question and in another Applicants have agreed to produce documents.
Conference among William Eggeling, Tony Roisman, Judge Bloch.
8610080264 861003 pQh
{DR ADOCK 05000445 PDR
l\\
Discovery 6/27/86:
2 I.
Management Responses to Certain Documents A.
Motion to Compel The list of documents referred to in Request No. 4 happens to have been obtained by CASE in the construction permit extension case.
The source of the list is relevant. The list contains:
- audits, reviews, diagnoses, evaluations, consultant
- reports, i
in-house audits, or other reports which Applicants received from the beginning of construction to the present assessing, analyzing, commenting on, discussing, or offering an opinion on the plant's construction, procedures, compliance with industry or agency standards, or management style or competence.
The interrogatory requests Applicants' resconses to all of these documents.
Given the source of the list, however, there may be docu-ments in the list that deal with construction but not with quality of construction, with procedures that have nothing to do with quality assurance or quality control, with compliance with standards that do not affect plant safety and with issues of management style that have nothing at all to do with responsibility for deficiencies in the plant.
We onsider the question in its present form to be overly broad and we deny the request to compel.
B.
Scope of CPRT In our deliberations on this request for discovery, the Board considered the relationship of the listed documents to the scope of the CPRT review.
As a result, we decided that we would like clarification by receiving answers to two questions.
First, will the CPRT review quality control or quality assurance issues generated in audits, 1
9 i
?./
Discovery 6/27/86:
3 reviews, diagnoses, evaluations, consultant reports and in-house audits or other internal reports? Second, to what extent will the CPRT examine the adequacy of management response to issues so generated? We consider the answers to these two questions to be information necessary for an adequate record with respect to the scope of the CPRT report.
Conse-quently, we shall order a response from Applicants by the end of October 1986.
II.
Delay of Construction With respect to Request No.
5, we are not persuaded by CASE's arguments concerning the direct or indirect relevance of information related to good cause for the extension of the construction permit.
Applicants' credibility on issues not directly related to this proceeding is a deep well from which we need not drink.
Applicants' competence is in controversy only with respect to Contention 5 issues, including the questions of root cause of deficiencies and of appropriate relief.
Questions that focus on Applicants' reasons for obtaining an extention of the construction permit are too broad to admit of discovery in this case.
0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this third day of October 1986
v Discovery 6/27/86:
4 ORDERED:
That Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. (Applicants) shall answer the two Board questions contained in the accompanying Memorandum by the end of October 1986.
In all other respects, CASE's disputed requests for documents are denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)hL A
' Peter B. Bloch, Chainnan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland l
l I
...